One of the most important survival skills is the ability to see dangers
around us in time to do something about them.

The stick-or-gun problem

If you are walking alone somewhere in a park and you see a man coming
towards you with a short rod in his hand, you might be forgiven for thinking it
could be a gun.

The dilemma is that if it is a stick, perhaps that the man is throwing for his dog, then you might embarrass yourself by running
away. But if you bluff it out, they might rob or even kill you. The greater
threat means that it makes sense to be worried, even though the chance of it
being a gun is actually very low.

This is the nature of many threatening situations. If you underestimate the
danger then you will be harmed. In consequence, we tend to over-estimate
threats.

Naivety and vigilance

In the question of how much effort people put into watching out for threats,
there is a spectrum from innocent naivety to careful vigilance.

Naivety

The naive person skips along through life, oblivious to all the dangers
around them. Like a tourist wandering gaily into a rough local bar, innocent
people simply do not see the hazards.

This may be because they do not bother looking for threats and it may be they
have a poor detection ability. The bottom line is that whether they get punched
or deceived, they just did not see it coming.

Sometimes naive people appear vigilant, but when they are unable to spot
threats they will still meet problems.

Vigilance

A vigilant person is always on the lookout for threats. They are keenly aware
of the dangers around them and constantly scan. Like a martial artist, they
extend their sensitivity and awareness beyond their reach and are constantly in
a state of readiness.

Vigilant people may have learned to watch out for themselves at a young age
or perhaps have concluded in other ways, such as stick-and-gun situations, that
attention to the environment beats ignorance.

People who are vigilant are not necessarily distrusting. They just do so with
care, keeping a weather eye on situations just in case they turn bad.

Blind trust and paranoia

Another dimension in scanning for possible threats is the extent to which you
trust other people.

Blind trust

Trust is what enables society. If we trust others, then they will be more
likely to trust us, and we can live without constantly worrying about threats
from our friends.

Some people, however, take this too far. They blindly trust strangers with
their possessions and their lives, assuming everyone is trustworthy. Even when
others take advantage, they do not learn the lessons of life, continuing to
blindly trust, then falling victim time and again.

Blind trust can be caused by a person constantly taking the
child position, seeking parent figures who
will care for them.

Paranoia

At the other end of the spectrum, people who are paranoid trust nothing and
nobody. Whilst this reduces the chance of harm, it has a number of negative
consequences.

A paranoid person, in not trusting others, will find they have few, if any
friends. If others come close then the person backs away in case the others are harmful.

Another emotionally draining down-side of paranoia is
fear. If you do not trust people then you
will probably fear them. Fear can also turn into anger and hate, which are also
negative and harmful emotions.

Four dysfunctional types

A simple model that combines naivety and vigilance with trust and paranoia is
shown below. This results in four extreme types, any of which can be
dysfunctional, harming the person more than it helps them. In consequence, most
people are more towards the middle, taking a balanced position of moderate
vigilance and reasonable trust.

Vigilance-Trust matrix

How much I
trust others

Blind trust

Paranoia

How carefully I watch for threats

Naivety

Vigilance

Innocent
lamb

Blind
fool

Foolish
victim

Terrified
wreck

A balanced position

Between the extreme positions is an effective, balanced position that many
people find, where they are selectively vigilant and reasonably trusting.

In the balance of naivety and vigilance, it is worth being moderately
vigilant much of the time, with a relaxed but attentive awareness of the world
around you.

In the trust spectrum, a reasonable position is 'trust but verify'. Be
initially trusting in most things, but do not put yourself in the path of
possibly serious danger whilst you watch for evidence that others are decent and
trustworthy.

In both spectra, the key is situations. Learn where you should be extra
vigilant and particularly cautious with your trust. If you can see these 'hot
spots' in your life, then you can be more trusting and less vigilant in others,
hence saving cognitive and emotional effort most of the time.

Accuracy and Decision

The effectiveness of how we handle threats depends both on how accurately we
assess them, and how effective our subsequent decisions are.

Accuracy

When assessing threats, some are better than others. Once you have recognized
that there is a threat, the question is how serious this is. Our ability to
predict now comes into play as we assess
what might happen. The extent to which we trust people, and how valid that trust
is, is a significant factor here.

In the manner of creating contrast,
we will often
polarize threats, making them overly large
or small, good or bad. By exaggerating what we see, we are more able to
differentiate. This also is related to Ellis' irrational beliefs.

Decision

After deciding there is a threat, we need to decide what to do about it. This
initially depends on the accuracy of the threat assessment. If the accuracy is
poor then the decision is unlikely to help the situation and could make things
worse.

When the threat is human, decision depends on our understanding of human
psychology. Other factors can also appear as threats, in which different skills
are needed, such as meteorological ability to assess a weather threat.

State and Transition

As threat increases, people do not act consistently. What typically happens
is that they jump through a series of states, for example becoming more tense
and then suddenly becoming aggressive or hysterical.

When threat declines, people do not flip back to prior states at the same
threat level as when they changed on the way up. Typically they will sustain
higher caution for longer, transitioning back to higher trust only when they are
very sure it is safe to do so. This kind of pattern also appears in the
hysteresis of trust and betrayal.

So what?

To influence others, you can increase or decrease the apparent threat,
although beware of the fight-or-flight
reaction in which people may react in a way that is not helpful. We often
run away from threats without realizing which direction we are going. This can
be useful or it can be problematic.

You can also help to reduce threat, so making people grateful and more likely
to collaborate with you.

Before making use of threat, see if you can calibrate people in terms of how
they normally react to threats. Remember in this that people may have 'flip
points' at which they change their response, reacting in a different way.